Salvaging lock elision transactions

ABSTRACT

A transactional memory system salvages hardware lock elision (HLE) transactions. A computer system of the transactional memory system records information about locks elided to begin HLE transactional execution of first and second transactional code regions. The computer system detects a pending cache line conflict of a cache line, and based on the detecting stops execution of the first code region of the first transaction and the second code region of the second transaction. The computer system determines that the first lock and the second lock are different locks and uses the recorded information about locks elided to acquire the first lock of the first transaction and the second lock of the second transaction. The computer system commits speculative state of the first transaction and the second transaction and the computer system continues execution of the first code region and the second code region non-transactionally.

BACKGROUND

This disclosure relates generally to transactional execution, and morespecifically to salvaging lock elision transactions.

The number of central processing unit (CPU) cores on a chip and thenumber of CPU cores connected to a shared memory continues to growsignificantly to support growing workload capacity demand. Theincreasing number of CPUs cooperating to process the same workloads putsa significant burden on software scalability; for example, shared queuesor data-structures protected by traditional semaphores become hot spotsand lead to sub-linear n-way scaling curves. Traditionally this has beencountered by implementing finer-grained locking in software, and withlower latency/higher bandwidth interconnects in hardware. Implementingfine-grained locking to improve software scalability can be verycomplicated and error-prone, and at today's CPU frequencies, thelatencies of hardware interconnects are limited by the physicaldimension of the chips and systems, and by the speed of light.

Implementations of hardware Transactional Memory (HTM, or in thisdiscussion, simply TM) have been introduced, wherein a group ofinstructions—called a transaction—operate in an atomic manner on a datastructure in memory, as viewed by other central processing units (CPUs)and the I/O subsystem (atomic operation is also known as “blockconcurrent” or “serialized” in other literature). The transactionexecutes optimistically without obtaining a lock, but may need to abortand retry the transaction execution if an operation, of the executingtransaction, on a memory location conflicts with another operation onthe same memory location. Previously, software transactional memoryimplementations have been proposed to support software TransactionalMemory (TM). However, hardware TM can provide improved performanceaspects and ease of use over software TM.

U.S. Pat. No. 7,587,615 titled “Utilizing Hardware TransactionalApproach to Execute Code After Initially Utilizing Software Locking ByEmploying Pseudo-Transactions” filed Sep. 12, 2004, incorporated byreference herein in its entirety, teaches utilizing a hardwaretransactional approach to execute a code section by employingpseudo-transactions, after initially utilizing software locking. Amethod is disclosed that utilizes a software approach to locking memoryto execute a code section relating to memory. The software approachemploys a pseudo-transaction to determine whether a hardware approach totransactional memory to execute the threshold would have beensuccessful. Where the hardware approach to transactional memory toexecute the code section satisfies a threshold based on success of atleast the pseudo-transaction, the method subsequently utilizes thehardware approach to execute the code section. The hardware approach mayinclude starting a transaction inclusive of the code section,conditionally executing the transaction, and, upon successfullycompleting the transaction, committing execution of the transaction tothe memory to which the code section relates.

U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0013899 titled “UsingHardware Transaction Primitives for Implementing Non-TransactionalEscape Actions Inside Transactions” filed Jul. 6, 2011, incorporated byreference herein in its entirety, teaches mechanisms that are providedfor performing escape actions within transactions. These mechanismsexecute a transaction comprising a transactional section and an escapeaction. The transactional section is comprised of one or moreinstructions that are to be executed in an atomic manner as part of thetransaction. The escape action is comprised of one or more instructionsto be executed in a non-transactional manner. These mechanisms furtherpopulate at least one actions list data structure, associated with athread of the data processing system that is executing the transaction,with one or more actions associated with the escape action. Moreover,these mechanisms execute one or more actions in the actions list datastructure based upon whether the transaction commits successfully or isaborted.

U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0169623 titled “Method andSystem for Reducing Abort Rates in Speculative Lock Elision usingContention Management Mechanisms” filed Dec. 29, 2008, incorporated byreference herein in its entirety, teaches that hardware-basedtransactional memory mechanisms, such as Speculative Lock Elision (SLE),may allow multiple threads to concurrently execute critical sectionsprotected by the same lock as speculative transactions. Suchtransactions may abort due to contention or due to misidentification ofcode as a critical section. In various embodiments, speculativeexecution mechanisms may be augmented with software and/or hardwarecontention management mechanisms to reduce abort rates. Speculativeexecution hardware may send a hardware interrupt signal to notifysoftware components of a speculative execution event (e.g., abort).Software components may respond by implementing concurrency-throttlingmechanisms and/or by determining a mode of execution (e.g., speculative,non-speculative) for a given section and communicating thatdetermination to the hardware speculative execution mechanisms, e.g., bywriting it into a lock predictor cache. Subsequently, hardwarespeculative execution mechanisms may determine a preferred mode ofexecution for the section by reading the corresponding entry from thelock predictor cache.

U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0084477 titled“Transactional Memory Preemption Mechanism” filed Sep. 30, 2010,incorporated by reference herein in its entirety, teaches mechanisms forexecuting a transaction in a data processing system. A transactioncheckpoint data structure is generated in internal registers of aprocessor. The transaction checkpoint data structure stores transactioncheckpoint data representing a state of program registers at a timeprior to execution of a corresponding transaction. The transaction,which comprises a first portion of code that is to be executed by theprocessor, is executed. An interrupt of the transaction is receivedwhile executing the transaction and, as a result, the transactioncheckpoint data is stored to a data structure in a memory of the dataprocessing system. A second portion of code is then executed. A state ofthe program registers is restored using the data structure in the memoryof the data processing system in response to an event occurring causinga switch of execution of the processor back to execution of thetransaction.

SUMMARY

Embodiments of the present disclosure provide a method, system, andprogram product for a transactional memory system that salvages hardwarelock elision (HLE) transactions. A computer system of the transactionalmemory system records information about locks elided to begin HLEtransactional execution of first and second transactional code regions.The computer system detects a pending cache line conflict of a cacheline, and based on the detecting stops execution of the first coderegion of the first transaction and the second code region of the secondtransaction. The computer system determines that the first lock and thesecond lock are different locks and uses the recorded information aboutlocks elided to acquire the first lock of the first transaction and thesecond lock of the second transaction. The computer system commitsspeculative state of the first transaction and the second transactionand the computer system continues execution of the first code region andthe second code region non-transactionally.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWINGS

One or more aspects of the present disclosed embodiments areparticularly pointed out and distinctly claimed as examples in theclaims at the conclusion of the specification. The foregoing and otherobjects, features, and advantages of the disclosed embodiments areapparent from the following detailed description taken in conjunctionwith the accompanying drawings in which:

FIGS. 1 and 2 depict block diagrams of a multicore Transactional Memoryenvironment, in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure;

FIG. 3 depicts a block diagram including components of a CPU, inaccordance with embodiments of the present disclosure;

FIG. 4 depicts a flow diagram illustrating salvaging several lockelision transactions upon detection of a false sharing conflict, inaccordance with embodiments of the present disclosure;

FIG. 5 depicts a flow diagram illustrating salvaging several lockelision transactions upon detection of a false sharing conflict, inaccordance with embodiments of the present disclosure;

FIG. 6 depicts portions of the flow diagram of FIG. 5 illustratingsalvaging several lock elision transactions upon detection of a falsesharing conflict, in accordance with embodiments of the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 7 depicts a functional block diagram of a computer system, inaccordance with embodiments of the present disclosure; and

FIG. 8 depicts a functional block diagram of a portion of the computersystem of FIG. 7, in accordance with embodiments of the presentdisclosure.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Historically, a computer system or processor had only a single processor(aka processing unit or central processing unit). The processor includedan instruction processing unit (IPU), a branch unit, a memory controlunit and the like. Such processors were capable of executing a singlethread of a program at a time. Operating systems were developed thatcould time-share a processor by dispatching a program to be executed onthe processor for a period of time, and then dispatching another programto be executed on the processor for another period of time. Astechnology evolved, memory subsystem caches were often added to theprocessor as well as complex dynamic address translation includingtranslation lookaside buffers (TLBs). The IPU itself was often referredto as a processor. As technology continued to evolve, an entireprocessor, could be packaged in a single semiconductor chip or die, sucha processor was referred to as a microprocessor. Then processors weredeveloped that incorporated multiple IPUs, such processors were oftenreferred to as multi-processors. Each such processor of amulti-processor computer system (processor) may include individual orshared caches, memory interfaces, system bus, address translationmechanism and the like. Virtual machine and instruction set architecture(ISA) emulators added a layer of software to a processor, that providedthe virtual machine with multiple “virtual processors” (aka processors)by time-slice usage of a single IPU in a single hardware processor. Astechnology further evolved, multi-threaded processors were developed,enabling a single hardware processor having a single multi-thread IPU toprovide a capability of simultaneously executing threads of differentprograms, thus each thread of a multi-threaded processor appeared to theoperating system as a processor. As technology further evolved, it waspossible to put multiple processors (each having an IPU) on a singlesemiconductor chip or die. These processors were referred to processorcores or just cores. Thus the terms such as processor, centralprocessing unit, processing unit, microprocessor, core, processor core,processor thread, and thread, for example, are often usedinterchangeably. Aspects of embodiments herein may be practiced by anyor all processors including those shown supra, without departing fromthe teachings herein. Wherein the term “thread” or “processor thread” isused herein, it is expected that particular advantage of the embodimentmay be had in a processor thread implementation.

Transaction Execution in Intel® Based Embodiments

In “Intel® Architecture Instruction Set Extensions ProgrammingReference” 319433-012A, February 2012, incorporated by reference hereinin its entirety, Chapter 8 teaches, in part, that multithreadedapplications may take advantage of increasing numbers of CPU cores toachieve higher performance. However, the writing of multi-threadedapplications requires programmers to understand and take into accountdata sharing among the multiple threads. Access to shared data typicallyrequires synchronization mechanisms. These synchronization mechanismsare used to ensure that multiple threads update shared data byserializing operations that are applied to the shared data, oftenthrough the use of a critical section that is protected by a lock. Sinceserialization limits concurrency, programmers try to limit the overheaddue to synchronization.

Intel® Transactional Synchronization Extensions (Intel® TSX) allow aprocessor to dynamically determine whether threads need to be serializedthrough lock-protected critical sections, and to perform thatserialization only when required. This allows the processor to exposeand exploit concurrency that is hidden in an application because ofdynamically unnecessary synchronization.

With Intel TSX, programmer-specified code regions (also referred to as“transactional regions” or just “transactions”) are executedtransactionally. If the transactional execution completes successfully,then all memory operations performed within the transactional regionwill appear to have occurred instantaneously when viewed from otherprocessors. A processor makes the memory operations of the executedtransaction, performed within the transactional region, visible to otherprocessors only when a successful commit occurs, i.e., when thetransaction successfully completes execution. This process is oftenreferred to as an atomic commit.

Intel TSX provides two software interfaces to specify regions of codefor transactional execution. Hardware Lock Elision (HLE) is a legacycompatible instruction set extension (comprising the XACQUIRE andXRELEASE prefixes) to specify transactional regions. RestrictedTransactional Memory (RTM) is a new instruction set interface(comprising the XBEGIN, XEND, and XABORT instructions) for programmersto define transactional regions in a more flexible manner than thatpossible with HLE. HLE is for programmers who prefer the backwardcompatibility of the conventional mutual exclusion programming model andwould like to run HLE-enabled software on legacy hardware but would alsolike to take advantage of the new lock elision capabilities on hardwarewith HLE support. RTM is for programmers who prefer a flexible interfaceto the transactional execution hardware. In addition, Intel TSX alsoprovides an XTEST instruction. This instruction allows software to querywhether the logical processor is transactionally executing in atransactional region identified by either HLE or RTM.

Since a successful transactional execution ensures an atomic commit, theprocessor executes the code region optimistically without explicitsynchronization. If synchronization was unnecessary for that specificexecution, execution can commit without any cross-thread serialization.If the processor cannot commit atomically, then the optimistic executionfails. When this happens, the processor will roll back the execution, aprocess referred to as a transactional abort. On a transactional abort,the processor will discard all updates performed in the memory regionused by the transaction, restore architectural state to appear as if theoptimistic execution never occurred, and resume executionnon-transactionally.

A processor can perform a transactional abort for numerous reasons. Aprimary reason to abort a transaction is due to conflicting memoryaccesses between the transactionally executing logical processor andanother logical processor. Such conflicting memory accesses may preventa successful transactional execution. Memory addresses read from withina transactional region constitute the read-set of the transactionalregion and addresses written to within the transactional regionconstitute the write-set of the transactional region. Intel TSXmaintains the read- and write-sets at the granularity of a cache line. Aconflicting memory access occurs if another logical processor eitherreads a location that is part of the transactional region's write-set orwrites a location that is a part of either the read- or write-set of thetransactional region. A conflicting access typically means thatserialization is required for this code region. Since Intel TSX detectsdata conflicts at the granularity of a cache line, unrelated datalocations placed in the same cache line will be detected as conflictsthat result in transactional aborts. Transactional aborts may also occurdue to limited transactional resources. For example, the amount of dataaccessed in the region may exceed an implementation-specific capacity.Additionally, some instructions and system events may causetransactional aborts. Frequent transactional aborts result in wastedcycles and increased inefficiency.

Hardware Lock Elision

Hardware Lock Elision (HLE) provides a legacy compatible instruction setinterface for programmers to use transactional execution. HLE providestwo new instruction prefix hints: XACQUIRE and XRELEASE.

With HLE, a programmer adds the XACQUIRE prefix to the front of theinstruction that is used to acquire the lock that is protecting thecritical section. The processor treats the prefix as a hint to elide thewrite associated with the lock acquire operation. Even though the lockacquire has an associated write operation to the lock, the processordoes not add the address of the lock to the transactional region'swrite-set nor does it issue any write requests to the lock. Instead, theaddress of the lock is added to the read-set. The logical processorenters transactional execution. If the lock was available before theXACQUIRE prefixed instruction, then all other processors will continueto see the lock as available afterwards. Since the transactionallyexecuting logical processor neither added the address of the lock to itswrite-set nor performed externally visible write operations to the lock,other logical processors can read the lock without causing a dataconflict. This allows other logical processors to also enter andconcurrently execute the critical section protected by the lock. Theprocessor automatically detects any data conflicts that occur during thetransactional execution and will perform a transactional abort ifnecessary.

Even though the eliding processor did not perform any external writeoperations to the lock, the hardware ensures program order of operationson the lock. If the eliding processor itself reads the value of the lockin the critical section, it will appear as if the processor had acquiredthe lock, i.e. the read will return the non-elided value. This behaviorallows an HLE execution to be functionally equivalent to an executionwithout the HLE prefixes.

An XRELEASE prefix can be added in front of an instruction that is usedto release the lock protecting a critical section. Releasing the lockinvolves a write to the lock. If the instruction is to restore the valueof the lock to the value the lock had prior to the XACQUIRE prefixedlock acquire operation on the same lock, then the processor elides theexternal write request associated with the release of the lock and doesnot add the address of the lock to the write-set. The processor thenattempts to commit the transactional execution.

With HLE, if multiple threads execute critical sections protected by thesame lock but they do not perform any conflicting operations on eachother's data, then the threads can execute concurrently and withoutserialization. Even though the software uses lock acquisition operationson a common lock, the hardware recognizes this, elides the lock, andexecutes the critical sections on the two threads without requiring anycommunication through the lock—if such communication was dynamicallyunnecessary.

If the processor is unable to execute the region transactionally, thenthe processor will execute the region non-transactionally and withoutelision. HLE enabled software has the same forward progress guaranteesas the underlying non-HLE lock-based execution. For successful HLEexecution, the lock and the critical section code must follow certainguidelines. These guidelines only affect performance; and failure tofollow these guidelines will not result in a functional failure.Hardware without HLE support will ignore the XACQUIRE and XRELEASEprefix hints and will not perform any elision since these prefixescorrespond to the REPNE/REPE IA-32 prefixes which are ignored on theinstructions where XACQUIRE and XRELEASE are valid. Importantly, HLE iscompatible with the existing lock-based programming model. Improper useof hints will not cause functional bugs though it may expose latent bugsalready in the code.

Restricted Transactional Memory (RTM) provides a flexible softwareinterface for transactional execution. RTM provides three newinstructions—XBEGIN, XEND, and XABORT—for programmers to start, commit,and abort a transactional execution.

The programmer uses the XBEGIN instruction to specify the start of atransactional code region and the XEND instruction to specify the end ofthe transactional code region. If the RTM region could not besuccessfully executed transactionally, then the XBEGIN instruction takesan operand that provides a relative offset to the fallback instructionaddress.

A processor may abort RTM transactional execution for many reasons. Inmany instances, the hardware automatically detects transactional abortconditions and restarts execution from the fallback instruction addresswith the architectural state corresponding to that present at the startof the XBEGIN instruction and the EAX register updated to describe theabort status.

The XABORT instruction allows programmers to abort the execution of anRTM region explicitly. The XABORT instruction takes an 8-bit immediateargument that is loaded into the EAX register and will thus be availableto software following an RTM abort. RTM instructions do not have anydata memory location associated with them. While the hardware providesno guarantees as to whether an RTM region will ever successfully committransactionally, most transactions that follow the recommendedguidelines are expected to successfully commit transactionally. However,programmers must always provide an alternative code sequence in thefallback path to guarantee forward progress. This may be as simple asacquiring a lock and executing the specified code regionnon-transactionally. Further, a transaction that always aborts on agiven implementation may complete transactionally on a futureimplementation. Therefore, programmers must ensure the code paths forthe transactional region and the alternative code sequence arefunctionally tested.

Detection of HLE Support

A processor supports HLE execution if CPUID.07H.EBX.HLE [bit 4]=1.However, an application can use the HLE prefixes (XACQUIRE and XRELEASE)without checking whether the processor supports HLE. Processors withoutHLE support ignore these prefixes and will execute the code withoutentering transactional execution.

Detection of RTM Support

A processor supports RTM execution if CPUID.07H.EBX.RTM [bit 11]=1. Anapplication must check if the processor supports RTM before it uses theRTM instructions (XBEGIN, XEND, XABORT). These instructions willgenerate a #UD exception when used on a processor that does not supportRTM.

Detection of XTEST Instruction

A processor supports the XTEST instruction if it supports either HLE orRTM. An application must check either of these feature flags beforeusing the XTEST instruction. This instruction will generate a #UDexception when used on a processor that does not support either HLE orRTM.

Querying Transactional Execution Status

The XTEST instruction can be used to determine the transactional statusof a transactional region specified by HLE or RTM. Note, while the HLEprefixes are ignored on processors that do not support HLE, the XTESTinstruction will generate a #UD exception when used on processors thatdo not support either HLE or RTM.

Requirements for HLE Locks

For HLE execution to successfully commit transactionally, the lock mustsatisfy certain properties and access to the lock must follow certainguidelines.

An XRELEASE prefixed instruction must restore the value of the elidedlock to the value it had before the lock acquisition. This allowshardware to safely elide locks by not adding them to the write-set. Thedata size and data address of the lock release (XRELEASE prefixed)instruction must match that of the lock acquire (XACQUIRE prefixed) andthe lock must not cross a cache line boundary.

Software should not write to the elided lock inside a transactional HLEregion with any instruction other than an XRELEASE prefixed instruction,otherwise such a write may cause a transactional abort. In addition,recursive locks (where a thread acquires the same lock multiple timeswithout first releasing the lock) may also cause a transactional abort.Note that software can observe the result of the elided lock acquireinside the critical section. Such a read operation will return the valueof the write to the lock.

The processor automatically detects violations to these guidelines, andsafely transitions to a non-transactional execution without elision.Since Intel TSX detects conflicts at the granularity of a cache line,writes to data collocated on the same cache line as the elided lock maybe detected as data conflicts by other logical processors eliding thesame lock.

Transactional Nesting

Both HLE and RTM support nested transactional regions. However, atransactional abort restores state to the operation that startedtransactional execution: either the outermost XACQUIRE prefixed HLEeligible instruction or the outermost XBEGIN instruction. The processortreats all nested transactions as one transaction.

HLE Nesting and Elision

Programmers can nest HLE regions up to an implementation specific depthof MAX_HLE_NEST_COUNT. Each logical processor tracks the nesting countinternally but this count is not available to software. An XACQUIREprefixed HLE-eligible instruction increments the nesting count, and anXRELEASE prefixed HLE-eligible instruction decrements it. The logicalprocessor enters transactional execution when the nesting count goesfrom zero to one. The logical processor attempts to commit only when thenesting count becomes zero. A transactional abort may occur if thenesting count exceeds MAX_HLE_NEST_COUNT.

In addition to supporting nested HLE regions, the processor can alsoelide multiple nested locks. The processor tracks a lock for elisionbeginning with the XACQUIRE prefixed HLE eligible instruction for thatlock and ending with the XRELEASE prefixed HLE eligible instruction forthat same lock. The processor can, at any one time, track up to aMAX_HLE_ELIDED_LOCKS number of locks. For example, if the implementationsupports a MAX_HLE_ELIDED_LOCKS value of two and if the programmer neststhree HLE identified critical sections (by performing XACQUIRE prefixedHLE eligible instructions on three distinct locks without performing anintervening XRELEASE prefixed HLE eligible instruction on any one of thelocks), then the first two locks will be elided, but the third won't beelided (but will be added to the transaction's writeset). However, theexecution will still continue transactionally. Once an XRELEASE for oneof the two elided locks is encountered, a subsequent lock acquiredthrough the XACQUIRE prefixed HLE eligible instruction will be elided.

The processor attempts to commit the HLE execution when all elidedXACQUIRE and XRELEASE pairs have been matched, the nesting count goes tozero, and the locks have satisfied requirements. If execution cannotcommit atomically, then execution transitions to a non-transactionalexecution without elision as if the first instruction did not have anXACQUIRE prefix.

RTM Nesting

Programmers can nest RTM regions up to an implementation specificMAX_RTM_NEST_COUNT. The logical processor tracks the nesting countinternally but this count is not available to software. An XBEGINinstruction increments the nesting count, and an XEND instructiondecrements the nesting count. The logical processor attempts to commitonly if the nesting count becomes zero. A transactional abort occurs ifthe nesting count exceeds MAX_RTM_NEST_COUNT.

Nesting HLE and RTM

HLE and RTM provide two alternative software interfaces to a commontransactional execution capability. Transactional processing behavior isimplementation specific when HLE and RTM are nested together, e.g., HLEis inside RTM or RTM is inside HLE. However, in all cases, theimplementation will maintain HLE and RTM semantics. An implementationmay choose to ignore HLE hints when used inside RTM regions, and maycause a transactional abort when RTM instructions are used inside HLEregions. In the latter case, the transition from transactional tonon-transactional execution occurs seamlessly since the processor willre-execute the HLE region without actually doing elision, and thenexecute the RTM instructions.

Abort Status Definition

RTM uses the EAX register to communicate abort status to software.Following an RTM abort the EAX register has the following definition.

TABLE 1 RTM Abort Status Definition EAX Register Bit Position Meaning 0Set if abort caused by XABORT instruction 1 If set, the transaction maysucceed on retry, this bit is always clear if bit 0 is set 2 Set ifanother logical processor conflicted with a memory address that was partof the transaction that aborted 3 Set if an internal buffer overflowed 4Set if a debug breakpoint was hit 5 Set if an abort occurred duringexecution of a nested transaction 23:6 Reserved 31-24 XABORT argument(only valid if bit 0 set, otherwise reserved)

The EAX abort status for RTM only provides causes for aborts. It doesnot by itself encode whether an abort or commit occurred for the RTMregion. The value of EAX can be 0 following an RTM abort. For example, aCPUID instruction when used inside an RTM region causes a transactionalabort and may not satisfy the requirements for setting any of the EAXbits. This may result in an EAX value of 0.

RTM Memory Ordering

A successful RTM commit causes all memory operations in the RTM regionto appear to execute atomically. A successfully committed RTM regionconsisting of an XBEGIN followed by an XEND, even with no memoryoperations in the RTM region, has the same ordering semantics as a LOCKprefixed instruction.

The XBEGIN instruction does not have fencing semantics. However, if anRTM execution aborts, then all memory updates from within the RTM regionare discarded and are not made visible to any other logical processor.

RTM-Enabled Debugger Support

By default, any debug exception inside an RTM region will cause atransactional abort and will redirect control flow to the fallbackinstruction address with architectural state recovered and bit 4 in EAXset. However, to allow software debuggers to intercept execution ondebug exceptions, the RTM architecture provides additional capability.

If bit 11 of DR7 and bit 15 of the IA32_DEBUGCTL_MSR are both 1, any RTMabort due to a debug exception (#DB) or breakpoint exception (#BP)causes execution to roll back and restart from the XBEGIN instructioninstead of the fallback address. In this scenario, the EAX register willalso be restored back to the point of the XBEGIN instruction.

Programming Considerations

Typical programmer-identified regions are expected to transactionallyexecute and commit successfully. However, Intel TSX does not provide anysuch guarantee. A transactional execution may abort for many reasons. Totake full advantage of the transactional capabilities, programmersshould follow certain guidelines to increase the probability of theirtransactional execution committing successfully.

This section discusses various events that may cause transactionalaborts. The architecture ensures that updates performed within atransaction that subsequently aborts execution will never becomevisible. Only committed transactional executions initiate an update tothe architectural state. Transactional aborts never cause functionalfailures and only affect performance.

Instruction Based Considerations

Programmers can use any instruction safely inside a transaction (HLE orRTM) and can use transactions at any privilege level. However, someinstructions will always abort the transactional execution and causeexecution to seamlessly and safely transition to a non-transactionalpath.

Intel TSX allows for most common instructions to be used insidetransactions without causing aborts. The following operations inside atransaction do not typically cause an abort:

-   -   Operations on the instruction pointer register, general purpose        registers (GPRs) and the status flags (CF, OF, SF, PF, AF, and        ZF); and    -   Operations on XMM and YMM registers and the MXCSR register.

However, programmers must be careful when intermixing SSE and AVXoperations inside a transactional region. Intermixing SSE instructionsaccessing XMM registers and AVX instructions accessing YMM registers maycause transactions to abort. Programmers may use REP/REPNE prefixedstring operations inside transactions. However, long strings may causeaborts. Further, the use of CLD and STD instructions may cause aborts ifthey change the value of the DF flag. However, if DF is 1, the STDinstruction will not cause an abort. Similarly, if DF is 0, then the CLDinstruction will not cause an abort.

Instructions not enumerated here as causing abort when used inside atransaction will typically not cause a transaction to abort (examplesinclude but are not limited to MFENCE, LFENCE, SFENCE, RDTSC, RDTSCP,etc.).

The following instructions will abort transactional execution on anyimplementation:

XABORT

CPUID

PAUSE

In addition, in some implementations, the following instructions mayalways cause transactional aborts. These instructions are not expectedto be commonly used inside typical transactional regions. However,programmers must not rely on these instructions to force a transactionalabort, since whether they cause transactional aborts is implementationdependent.

-   -   Operations on X87 and MMX architecture state. This includes all        MMX and X87 instructions, including the FXRSTOR and FXSAVE        instructions.    -   Update to non-status portion of EFLAGS: CLI, STI, POPFD, POPFQ,        CLTS.    -   Instructions that update segment registers, debug registers        and/or control registers: MOV to DS/ES/FS/GS/SS, POP        DS/ES/FS/GS/SS, LDS, LES, LFS, LGS, LSS, SWAPGS, WRFSBASE,        WRGSBASE, LGDT, SGDT, LIDT, SIDT, LLDT, SLDT, LTR, STR, Far        CALL, Far JMP, Far RET, IRET, MOV to DRx, MOV to        CR0/CR2/CR3/CR4/CR8 and LMSW.    -   Ring transitions: SYSENTER, SYSCALL, SYSEXIT, and SYSRET.    -   TLB and Cacheability control: CLFLUSH, INVD, WBINVD, INVLPG,        INVPCID, and memory instructions with a non-temporal hint        (MOVNTDQA, MOVNTDQ, MOVNTI, MOVNTPD, MOVNTPS, and MOVNTQ).    -   Processor state save: XSAVE, XSAVEOPT, and XRSTOR.    -   Interrupts: INTn, INTO.    -   IO: IN, INS, REP INS, OUT, OUTS, REP OUTS and their variants.    -   VMX: VMPTRLD, VMPTRST, VMCLEAR, VMREAD, VMWRITE, VMCALL,        VMLAUNCH, VMRESUME, VMXOFF, VMXON, INVEPT, and INVVPID.    -   SMX: GETSEC.    -   UD2, RSM, RDMSR, WRMSR, HLT, MONITOR, MWAIT, XSETBV, VZEROUPPER,        MASKMOVQ, and V/MASKMOVDQU.

Runtime Considerations

In addition to the instruction-based considerations, runtime events maycause transactional execution to abort. These may be due to data accesspatterns or micro-architectural implementation features. The followinglist is not a comprehensive discussion of all abort causes.

Any fault or trap in a transaction that must be exposed to software willbe suppressed. Transactional execution will abort and execution willtransition to a non-transactional execution, as if the fault or trap hadnever occurred. If an exception is not masked, then that un-maskedexception will result in a transactional abort and the state will appearas if the exception had never occurred.

Synchronous exception events (#DE, #OF, #NP, #SS, #GP, #BR, #UD, #AC,#XF, #PF, #NM, #TS, #MF, #DB, #BP/INT3) that occur during transactionalexecution may cause an execution not to commit transactionally, andrequire a non-transactional execution. These events are suppressed as ifthey had never occurred. With HLE, since the non-transactional code pathis identical to the transactional code path, these events will typicallyre-appear when the instruction that caused the exception is re-executednon-transactionally, causing the associated synchronous events to bedelivered appropriately in the non-transactional execution. Asynchronousevents (NMI, SMI, INTR, IPI, PMI, etc.) occurring during transactionalexecution may cause the transactional execution to abort and transitionto a non-transactional execution. The asynchronous events will be pendedand handled after the transactional abort is processed.

Transactions only support write-back cacheable memory type operations. Atransaction may always abort if the transaction includes operations onany other memory type. This includes instruction fetches to UC memorytype.

Memory accesses within a transactional region may require the processorto set the Accessed and Dirty flags of the referenced page table entry.The behavior of how the processor handles this is implementationspecific. Some implementations may allow the updates to these flags tobecome externally visible even if the transactional region subsequentlyaborts. Some Intel TSX implementations may choose to abort thetransactional execution if these flags need to be updated. Further, aprocessor's page-table walk may generate accesses to its owntransactionally written but uncommitted state. Some Intel TSXimplementations may choose to abort the execution of a transactionalregion in such situations. Regardless, the architecture ensures that, ifthe transactional region aborts, then the transactionally written statewill not be made architecturally visible through the behavior ofstructures such as TLBs.

Executing self-modifying code transactionally may also causetransactional aborts. Programmers must continue to follow the Intelrecommended guidelines for writing self-modifying and cross-modifyingcode even when employing HLE and RTM. While an implementation of RTM andHLE will typically provide sufficient resources for executing commontransactional regions, implementation constraints and excessive sizesfor transactional regions may cause a transactional execution to abortand transition to a non-transactional execution. The architectureprovides no guarantee of the amount of resources available to dotransactional execution and does not guarantee that a transactionalexecution will ever succeed.

Conflicting requests to a cache line accessed within a transactionalregion may prevent the transaction from executing successfully. Forexample, if logical processor P0 reads line A in a transactional regionand another logical processor P1 writes line A (either inside or outsidea transactional region) then logical processor P0 may abort if logicalprocessor P1's write interferes with processor P0's ability to executetransactionally.

Similarly, if P0 writes line A in a transactional region and P1 reads orwrites line A (either inside or outside a transactional region), then P0may abort if P1's access to line A interferes with P0's ability toexecute transactionally. In addition, other coherence traffic may attimes appear as conflicting requests and may cause aborts. While thesefalse conflicts may happen, they are expected to be uncommon. Theconflict resolution policy to determine whether P0 or P1 aborts in theabove scenarios is implementation specific.

Generic Transaction Execution Embodiments:

According to “ARCHITECTURES FOR TRANSACTIONAL MEMORY”, a dissertationsubmitted to the Department of Computer Science and the Committee onGraduate Studies of Stanford University in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, by Austen McDonald,June 2009, incorporated by reference herein in its entirety,fundamentally, there are three mechanisms needed to implement an atomicand isolated transactional region: versioning, conflict detection, andcontention management.

To make a transactional code region appear atomic, all the modificationsperformed by that transactional code region must be stored and keptisolated from other transactions until commit time. The system does thisby implementing a versioning policy. Two versioning paradigms exist:eager and lazy. An eager versioning system stores newly generatedtransactional values in place and stores previous memory values on theside, in what is called an undo-log. A lazy versioning system stores newvalues temporarily in what is called a write buffer, copying them tomemory only on commit. In either system, the cache is used to optimizestorage of new versions.

To ensure that transactions appear to be performed atomically, conflictsmust be detected and resolved. The two systems, i.e., the eager and lazyversioning systems, detect conflicts by implementing a conflictdetection policy, either optimistic or pessimistic. An optimistic systemexecutes transactions in parallel, checking for conflicts only when atransaction commits. A pessimistic system checks for conflicts at eachload and store. Similar to versioning, conflict detection also uses thecache, marking each line as either part of the read-set, part of thewrite-set, or both. The two systems resolve conflicts by implementing acontention management policy. Many contention management policies exist,some are more appropriate for optimistic conflict detection and some aremore appropriate for pessimistic. Described below are some examplepolicies.

Since each transactional memory (TM) system needs both versioningdetection and conflict detection, these options give rise to fourdistinct TM designs: Eager-Pessimistic (EP), Eager-Optimistic (EO),Lazy-Pessimistic (LP), and Lazy-Optimistic (LO). Table 2 brieflydescribes all four distinct TM designs.

FIGS. 1 and 2 depict an example of a multicore TM environment. FIG. 1shows many TM-enabled CPUs (CPU1 114 a, CPU2 114 b, etc.) on one die100, connected with an interconnect 122, under management of aninterconnect control 120 a, 120 b. Each CPU 114 a, 114 b (also known asa Processor) may have a split cache consisting of an Instruction Cache116 a, 166 b for caching instructions from memory to be executed and aData Cache 118 a, 118 b with TM support for caching data (operands) ofmemory locations to be operated on by CPU 114 a, 114 b (in FIG. 1, eachCPU 114 a, 114 b and its associated caches are referenced as 112 a, 112b). In an implementation, caches of multiple dies 100 are interconnectedto support cache coherency between the caches of the multiple dies 100.In an implementation, a single cache, rather than the split cache isemployed holding both instructions and data. In implementations, the CPUcaches are one level of caching in a hierarchical cache structure. Forexample each die 100 may employ a shared cache 124 to be shared amongstall the CPUs on the die 100. In another implementation, each die mayhave access to a shared cache 124, shared amongst all the processors ofall the dies 100.

FIG. 2 shows the details of an example transactional CPU environment112, having a CPU 114, including additions to support TM. Thetransactional CPU (processor) 114 may include hardware for supportingRegister Checkpoints 126 and special TM Registers 128. The transactionalCPU cache may have the MESI bits 130, Tags 140 and Data 142 of aconventional cache but also, for example, R bits 132 showing a line hasbeen read by the CPU 114 while executing a transaction and W bits 138showing a line has been written-to by the CPU 114 while executing atransaction.

A key detail for programmers in any TM system is how non-transactionalaccesses interact with transactions. By design, transactional accessesare screened from each other using the mechanisms above. However, theinteraction between a regular, non-transactional load with a transactioncontaining a new value for that address must still be considered. Inaddition, the interaction between a non-transactional store with atransaction that has read that address must also be explored. These areissues of the database concept isolation.

A TM system is said to implement strong isolation, sometimes calledstrong atomicity, when every non-transactional load and store acts likean atomic transaction. Therefore, non-transactional loads cannot seeuncommitted data and non-transactional stores cause atomicity violationsin any transactions that have read that address. A system where this isnot the case is said to implement weak isolation, sometimes called weakatomicity.

Strong isolation is often more desirable than weak isolation due to therelative ease of conceptualization and implementation of strongisolation. Additionally, if a programmer has forgotten to surround someshared memory references with transactions, causing bugs, then withstrong isolation, the programmer will often detect that oversight usinga simple debug interface because the programmer will see anon-transactional region causing atomicity violations. Also, programswritten in one model may work differently on another model.

Further, strong isolation is often easier to support in hardware TM thanweak isolation. With strong isolation, since the coherence protocolalready manages load and store communication between processors,transactions can detect non-transactional loads and stores and actappropriately. To implement strong isolation in software TransactionalMemory (TM), non-transactional code must be modified to include read-and write-barriers; potentially crippling performance. Although greateffort has been expended to remove many un-needed barriers, suchtechniques are often complex and performance is typically far lower thanthat of HTMs.

TABLE 2 Transactional Memory Design Space VERSIONING Lazy Eager CONFLICTOpti- Storing updates Not practical: waiting DETECTION mistic in a writeto update memory until buffer; detecting commit time but conflicts atdetecting conflicts at commit time. access time guarantees wasted workand provides no advantage Pessi- Storing updates Updating memory,keeping mistic in a write old values in undo log; buffer; detectingdetecting conflicts at conflicts at access time. access time.

Table 2 illustrates the fundamental design space of transactional memory(versioning and conflict detection).

Eager-Pessimistic (EP)

This first TM design described below is known as Eager-Pessimistic. AnEP system stores its write-set “in place” (hence the name “eager”) and,to support rollback, stores the old values of overwritten lines in an“undo log”. Processors use the W 138 and R 132 cache bits to track readand write-sets and detect conflicts when receiving snooped loadrequests. Perhaps the most notable examples of EP systems in knownliterature are Log TM and UTM.

Beginning a transaction in an EP system is much like beginning atransaction in other systems: tm_begin( ) takes a register checkpoint,and initializes any status registers. An EP system also requiresinitializing the undo log, the details of which are dependent on the logformat, but often involve initializing a log base pointer to a region ofpre-allocated, thread-private memory, and clearing a log boundsregister.

Versioning: In EP, due to the way eager versioning is designed tofunction, the MESI 130 state transitions (cache line indicatorscorresponding to Modified, Exclusive, Shared, and Invalid code states)are left mostly unchanged. Outside of a transaction, the MESI 130 statetransitions are left completely unchanged. When reading a line inside atransaction, the standard coherence transitions apply (S (Shared)→S, I(Invalid)→S, or I→E (Exclusive)), issuing a load miss as needed, but theR 132 bit is also set. Likewise, writing a line applies the standardtransitions (S→M, E→I, I→M), issuing a miss as needed, but also sets theW 138 (Written) bit. The first time a line is written, the old versionof the entire line is loaded then written to the undo log to preserve itin case the current transaction aborts. The newly written data is thenstored “in-place,” over the old data.

Conflict Detection: Pessimistic conflict detection uses coherencemessages exchanged on misses, or upgrades, to look for conflicts betweentransactions. When a read miss occurs within a transaction, otherprocessors receive a load request; but they ignore the request if theydo not have the needed line. If the other processors have the neededline non-speculatively or have the line R 132 (Read), they downgradethat line to S, and in certain cases issue a cache-to-cache transfer ifthey have the line in MESI's 130 M or E state. However, if the cache hasthe line W 138, then a conflict is detected between the two transactionsand additional action(s) must be taken.

Similarly, when a transaction seeks to upgrade a line from shared tomodified (on a first write), the transaction issues an exclusive loadrequest, which is also used to detect conflicts. If a receiving cachehas the line non-speculatively, then the line is invalidated, and incertain cases a cache-to-cache transfer (M or E states) is issued. But,if the line is R 132 or W 138, a conflict is detected.

Validation: Because conflict detection is performed on every load, atransaction always has exclusive access to its own write-set. Therefore,validation does not require any additional work.

Commit: Since eager versioning stores the new version of data items inplace, the commit process simply clears the W 138 and R 132 bits anddiscards the undo log.

Abort: When a transaction rolls back, the original version of each cacheline in the undo log must be restored, a process called “unrolling” or“applying” the log. This is done during tm_discard( ) and must be atomicwith regard to other transactions. Specifically, the write-set muststill be used to detect conflicts: this transaction has the only correctversion of lines in its undo log, and requesting transactions must waitfor the correct version to be restored from that log. Such a log can beapplied using a hardware state machine or software abort handler.

Eager-Pessimistic has the characteristics of: Commit is simple and sinceit is in-place, very fast. Similarly, validation is a no-op. Pessimisticconflict detection detects conflicts early, thereby reducing the numberof “doomed” transactions. For example, if two transactions are involvedin a Write-After-Read dependency, then that dependency is detectedimmediately in pessimistic conflict detection. However, in optimisticconflict detection such conflicts are not detected until the writercommits.

Eager-Pessimistic also has the characteristics of: As described above,the first time a cache line is written, the old value must be written tothe log, incurring extra cache accesses. Aborts are expensive as theyrequire undoing the log. For each cache line in the log, a load must beissued, perhaps going as far as main memory before continuing to thenext line. Pessimistic conflict detection also prevents certainserializable schedules from existing.

Additionally, because conflicts are handled as they occur, there is apotential for livelock and careful contention management mechanisms mustbe employed to guarantee forward progress.

Lazy-Optimistic (LO)

Another popular TM design is Lazy-Optimistic (LO), which stores itswrite-set in a “write buffer” or “redo log” and detects conflicts atcommit time (still using the R 132 and W 138 bits).

Versioning: Just as in the EP system, the MESI protocol of the LO designis enforced outside of the transactions. Once inside a transaction,reading a line incurs the standard MESI transitions but also sets the R132 bit. Likewise, writing a line sets the W 138 bit of the line, buthandling the MESI transitions of the LO design is different from that ofthe EP design. First, with lazy versioning, the new versions of writtendata are stored in the cache hierarchy until commit while othertransactions have access to old versions available in memory or othercaches. To make available the old versions, dirty lines (M lines) mustbe evicted when first written by a transaction. Second, no upgrademisses are needed because of the optimistic conflict detection feature:if a transaction has a line in the S state, it can simply write to itand upgrade that line to an M state without communicating the changeswith other transactions because conflict detection is done at committime.

Conflict Detection and Validation: To validate a transaction and detectconflicts, LO communicates the addresses of speculatively modified linesto other transactions only when it is preparing to commit. Onvalidation, the processor sends one, potentially large, network packetcontaining all the addresses in the write-set. Data is not sent, butleft in the cache of the committer and marked dirty (M). To build thispacket without searching the cache for lines marked W, a simple bitvector is used, called a “store buffer,” with one bit per cache line totrack these speculatively modified lines. Other transactions use thisaddress packet to detect conflicts: if an address is found in the cacheand the R 132 and/or W 138 bits are set, then a conflict is initiated.If the line is found but neither R 132 nor W 138 is set, then the lineis simply invalidated, which is similar to processing an exclusive load.

To support transaction atomicity, these address packets must be handledatomically, i.e., no two address packets may exist at once with the sameaddresses. In an LO system, this can be achieved by simply acquiring aglobal commit token before sending the address packet. However, atwo-phase commit scheme could be employed by first sending out theaddress packet, collecting responses, enforcing an ordering protocol(perhaps oldest transaction first), and committing once all responsesare satisfactory.

Commit: Once validation has occurred, commit needs no special treatment:simply clear W 138 and R 132 bits and the store buffer. Thetransaction's writes are already marked dirty in the cache and othercaches' copies of these lines have been invalidated via the addresspacket. Other processors can then access the committed data through theregular coherence protocol.

Abort: Rollback is equally easy: because the write-set is containedwithin the local caches, these lines can be invalidated, then clear W138 and R 132 bits and the store buffer. The store buffer allows W linesto be found to invalidate without the need to search the cache.

Lazy-Optimistic has the characteristics of: Aborts are very fast,requiring no additional loads or stores and making only local changes.More serializable schedules can exist than found in EP, which allows anLO system to more aggressively speculate that transactions areindependent, which can yield higher performance. Finally, the latedetection of conflicts can increase the likelihood of forward progress.

Lazy-Optimistic also has the characteristics of: Validation takes globalcommunication time proportional to size of write set. Doomedtransactions can waste work since conflicts are detected only at committime.

Lazy-Pessimistic (LP)

Lazy-Pessimistic (LP) represents a third TM design option, sittingsomewhere between EP and LO: storing newly written lines in a writebuffer but detecting conflicts on a per access basis.

Versioning: Versioning is similar but not identical to that of LO:reading a line sets its R bit 132, writing a line sets its W bit 138,and a store buffer is used to track W lines in the cache. Also, dirty(M) lines must be evicted when first written by a transaction, just asin LO. However, since conflict detection is pessimistic, load exclusivesmust be performed when upgrading a transactional line from I, S→M, whichis unlike LO.

Conflict Detection: LP's conflict detection operates the same as EP's:using coherence messages to look for conflicts between transactions.

Validation: Like in EP, pessimistic conflict detection ensures that atany point, a running transaction has no conflicts with any other runningtransaction, so validation is a no-op.

Commit: Commit needs no special treatment: simply clear W 138 and R 132bits and the store buffer, like in LO.

Abort: Rollback is also like that of LO: simply invalidate the write-setusing the store buffer and clear the W and R bits and the store buffer.

Eager-Optimistic (EO)

The LP has the characteristics of: Like LO, aborts are very fast. LikeEP, the use of pessimistic conflict detection reduces the number of“doomed” transactions Like EP, some serializable schedules are notallowed and conflict detection must be performed on each cache miss.

The final combination of versioning and conflict detection isEager-Optimistic (EO). EO may be a less than optimal choice for HTMsystems: since new transactional versions are written in-place, othertransactions have no choice but to notice conflicts as they occur (i.e.,as cache misses occur). But since EO waits until commit time to detectconflicts, those transactions become “zombies,” continuing to execute,wasting resources, yet are “doomed” to abort.

EO has proven to be useful in STMs and is implemented by Bartok-STM andMcRT. A lazy versioning STM needs to check its write buffer on each readto ensure that it is reading the most recent value. Since the writebuffer is not a hardware structure, this is expensive, hence thepreference for write-in-place eager versioning. Additionally, sincechecking for conflicts is also expensive in an STM, optimistic conflictdetection offers the advantage of performing this operation in bulk.

Contention Management

How a transaction rolls back once the system has decided to abort thattransaction has been described above, but, since a conflict involves twotransactions, the topics of which transaction should abort, how thatabort should be initiated, and when should the aborted transaction beretried need to be explored. These are topics that are addressed byContention Management (CM), a key component of transactional memory.Described below are policies regarding how the systems initiate abortsand the various established methods of managing which transactionsshould abort in a conflict.

Contention Management Policies

A Contention Management (CM) Policy is a mechanism that determines whichtransaction involved in a conflict should abort and when the abortedtransaction should be retried. For example, it is often the case thatretrying an aborted transaction immediately does not lead to the bestperformance. Conversely, employing a back-off mechanism, which delaysthe retrying of an aborted transaction, can yield better performance.STMs first grappled with finding the best contention management policiesand many of the policies outlined below were originally developed forSTMs.

CM Policies draw on a number of measures to make decisions, includingages of the transactions, size of read- and write-sets, the number ofprevious aborts, etc. The combinations of measures to make suchdecisions are endless, but certain combinations are described below,roughly in order of increasing complexity.

To establish some nomenclature, first note that in a conflict there aretwo sides: the attacker and the defender. The attacker is thetransaction requesting access to a shared memory location. Inpessimistic conflict detection, the attacker is the transaction issuingthe load or load exclusive. In optimistic, the attacker is thetransaction attempting to validate. The defender in both cases is thetransaction receiving the attacker's request.

An Aggressive CM Policy immediately and always retries either theattacker or the defender. In LO, Aggressive means that the attackeralways wins, and so Aggressive is sometimes called committer wins. Sucha policy was used for the earliest LO systems. In the case of EP,Aggressive can be either defender wins or attacker wins.

Restarting a conflicting transaction that will immediately experienceanother conflict is bound to waste work—namely interconnect bandwidthrefilling cache misses. A Polite CM Policy employs exponential backoff(but linear could also be used) before restarting conflicts. To preventstarvation, a situation where a process does not have resourcesallocated to it by the scheduler, the exponential backoff greatlyincreases the odds of transaction success after some n retries.

Another approach to conflict resolution is to randomly abort theattacker or defender (a policy called Randomized). Such a policy may becombined with a randomized backoff scheme to avoid unneeded contention.

However, making random choices, when selecting a transaction to abort,can result in aborting transactions that have completed “a lot of work”,which can waste resources. To avoid such waste, the amount of workcompleted on the transaction can be taken into account when determiningwhich transaction to abort. One measure of work could be a transaction'sage. Other methods include Oldest, Bulk TM, Size Matters, Karma, andPolka. Oldest is a simple timestamp method that aborts the youngertransaction in a conflict. Bulk TM uses this scheme. Size Matters islike Oldest but instead of transaction age, the number of read/writtenwords is used as the priority, reverting to Oldest after a fixed numberof aborts. Karma is similar, using the size of the write-set aspriority. Rollback then proceeds after backing off a fixed amount oftime. Aborted transactions keep their priorities after being aborted(hence the name Karma). Polka works like Karma but instead of backingoff a predefined amount of time, it backs off exponentially more eachtime.

Since aborting wastes work, it is logical to argue that stalling anattacker until the defender has finished their transaction would lead tobetter performance. Unfortunately, such a simple scheme easily leads todeadlock.

Deadlock avoidance techniques can be used to solve this problem. Greedyuses two rules to avoid deadlock. The first rule is, if a firsttransaction, T1, has lower priority than a second transaction, T0, or ifT1 is waiting for another transaction, then T1 aborts when conflictingwith T0. The second rule is, if T1 has higher priority than T0 and isnot waiting, then T0 waits until T1 commits, aborts, or starts waiting(in which case the first rule is applied). Greedy provides someguarantees about time bounds for executing a set of transactions. One EPdesign (Log TM) uses a CM policy similar to Greedy to achieve stallingwith conservative deadlock avoidance.

Example MESI coherency rules provide for four possible states in which acache line of a multiprocessor cache system may reside, M, E, S, and I,defined as follows:

Modified (M): The cache line is present only in the current cache, andis dirty; it has been modified from the value in main memory. The cacheis required to write the data back to main memory at some time in thefuture, before permitting any other read of the (no longer valid) mainmemory state. The write-back changes the line to the Exclusive state.

Exclusive (E): The cache line is present only in the current cache, butis clean; it matches main memory. It may be changed to the Shared stateat any time, in response to a read request. Alternatively, it may bechanged to the Modified state when writing to it.

Shared (S): Indicates that this cache line may be stored in other cachesof the machine and is “clean”; it matches the main memory. The line maybe discarded (changed to the Invalid state) at any time.

Invalid (I): Indicates that this cache line is invalid (unused).

TM coherency status indicators (R 132, W 138) may be provided for eachcache line, in addition to, or encoded in the MESI coherency bits. An R132 indicator indicates the current transaction has read from the dataof the cache line, and a W 138 indicator indicates the currenttransaction has written to the data of the cache line.

In another aspect of TM design, a system is designed using transactionalstore buffers. U.S. Pat. No. 6,349,361 titled “Methods and Apparatus forReordering and Renaming Memory References in a Multiprocessor ComputerSystem,” filed Mar. 31, 2000 and incorporated by reference herein in itsentirety, teaches a method for reordering and renaming memory referencesin a multiprocessor computer system having at least a first and a secondprocessor. The first processor has a first private cache and a firstbuffer, and the second processor has a second private cache and a secondbuffer. The method includes the steps of, for each of a plurality ofgated store requests received by the first processor to store a datum,exclusively acquiring a cache line that contains the datum by the firstprivate cache, and storing the datum in the first buffer. Upon the firstbuffer receiving a load request from the first processor to load aparticular datum, the particular datum is provided to the firstprocessor from among the data stored in the first buffer based on anin-order sequence of load and store operations. Upon the first cachereceiving a load request from the second cache for a given datum, anerror condition is indicated and a current state of at least one of theprocessors is reset to an earlier state when the load request for thegiven datum corresponds to the data stored in the first buffer.

The main implementation components of one such transactional memoryfacility are a transaction-backup register file for holdingpre-transaction GR (general register) content, a cache directory totrack the cache lines accessed during the transaction, a store cache tobuffer stores until the transaction ends, and firmware routines toperform various complex functions. In this section a detailedimplementation is described.

IBM zEnterprise EC12 Enterprise Server Embodiment

The IBM zEnterprise EC12 enterprise server introduces transactionalexecution (TX) in transactional memory, and is described in part in apaper, “Transactional Memory Architecture and Implementation for IBMSystem z” of Proceedings Pages 25-36 presented at MICRO-45, 1-5 Dec.2012, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, available from IEEE ComputerSociety Conference Publishing Services (CPS), which is incorporated byreference herein in its entirety.

Table 3 shows an example transaction. Transactions started with TBEGINare not assured to ever successfully complete with TEND, since they canexperience an aborting condition at every attempted execution, e.g., dueto repeating conflicts with other CPUs. This requires that the programsupport a fallback path to perform the same operationnon-transactionally, e.g., by using traditional locking schemes. Thisputs a significant burden on the programming and software verificationteams, especially where the fallback path is not automatically generatedby a reliable compiler.

TABLE 3 Example Transaction Code LHI R0,0 *initialize retry count=0 loopTBEGIN *begin transaction JNZ abort *go to abort code if CC1=0 LT R1,lock *load and test the fallback lock JNZ lckbzy *branch if lock busy .. . perform operation . . . TEND *end transaction . . . . . . . . . . .. lckbzy TABORT *abort if lock busy; this *resumes after TBEGIN abort JOfallback *no retry if CC=3 AHI R0, 1 *increment retry count CIJNL R0,6,*give up after 6 attempts fallback PPA R0, TX *random delay based onretry count . . . potentially wait for lock to become free . . . J loop*jump back to retry fallback OBTAIN lock *using Compare&Swap . . .perform operation . . . RELEASE lock . . . . . . . . . . . .

The requirement of providing a fallback path for aborted TransactionExecution (TX) transactions can be onerous. Many transactions operatingon shared data structures are expected to be short, touch only a fewdistinct memory locations, and use simple instructions only. For thosetransactions, the IBM zEnterprise EC12 introduces the concept ofconstrained transactions; under normal conditions, the CPU 114 (FIG. 2)assures that constrained transactions eventually end successfully,albeit without giving a strict limit on the number of necessary retries.A constrained transaction starts with a TBEGINC instruction and endswith a regular TEND. Implementing a task as a constrained ornon-constrained transaction typically results in very comparableperformance, but constrained transactions simplify software developmentby removing the need for a fallback path. IBM's Transactional Executionarchitecture is further described in z/Architecture, Principles ofOperation, Tenth Edition, SA22-7832-09 published September 2012 fromIBM, incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.

A constrained transaction starts with the TBEGINC instruction. Atransaction initiated with TBEGINC must follow a list of programmingconstraints; otherwise the program takes a non-filterableconstraint-violation interruption. Exemplary constraints may include,but not be limited to: the transaction can execute a maximum of 32instructions, all instruction text must be within 256 consecutive bytesof memory; the transaction contains only forward-pointing relativebranches (i.e., no loops or subroutine calls); the transaction canaccess a maximum of 4 aligned octowords (an octoword is 32 bytes) ofmemory; and restriction of the instruction-set to exclude complexinstructions like decimal or floating-point operations. The constraintsare chosen such that many common operations like doubly linkedlist-insert/delete operations can be performed, including the verypowerful concept of atomic compare-and-swap targeting up to 4 alignedoctowords. At the same time, the constraints were chosen conservativelysuch that future CPU implementations can assure transaction successwithout needing to adjust the constraints, since that would otherwiselead to software incompatibility.

TBEGINC mostly behaves like XBEGIN in TSX or TBEGIN on IBM's zEC12servers, except that the floating-point register (FPR) control and theprogram interruption filtering fields do not exist and the controls areconsidered to be zero. On a transaction abort, the instruction addressis set back directly to the TBEGINC instead of to the instruction after,reflecting the immediate retry and absence of an abort path forconstrained transactions.

Nested transactions are not allowed within constrained transactions, butif a TBEGINC occurs within a non-constrained transaction it is treatedas opening a new non-constrained nesting level just like TBEGIN would.This can occur, e.g., if a non-constrained transaction calls asubroutine that uses a constrained transaction internally.

Since interruption filtering is implicitly off, all exceptions during aconstrained transaction lead to an interruption into the operatingsystem (OS). Eventual successful finishing of the transaction relies onthe capability of the OS to page-in the at most 4 pages touched by anyconstrained transaction. The OS must also ensure time-slices long enoughto allow the transaction to complete.

TABLE 4 Transaction Code Example TBEGINC *begin constrained transaction. . . perform operation . . . TEND *end transaction

Table 4 shows the constrained-transactional implementation of the codein Table 3, assuming that the constrained transactions do not interactwith other locking-based code. No lock testing is shown therefore, butcould be added if constrained transactions and lock-based code weremixed.

When failure occurs repeatedly, software emulation is performed usingmillicode as part of system firmware. Advantageously, constrainedtransactions have desirable properties because of the burden removedfrom programmers.

With reference to FIG. 3, the IBM zEnterprise EC12 processor introducedthe transactional execution facility. The processor can decode 3instructions per clock cycle; simple instructions are dispatched assingle micro-ops, and more complex instructions are cracked intomultiple micro-ops. The micro-ops (Uops 232 b) are written into aunified issue queue 216, from where they can be issued out-of-order. Upto two fixed-point, one floating-point, two load/store, and two branchinstructions can execute every cycle. A Global Completion Table (GCT)232 holds every micro-op 232 b and a transaction nesting depth (TND) 232a. The GCT 232 is written in-order at decode time, tracks the executionstatus of each micro-op 232 b, and completes instructions when allmicro-ops 232 b of the oldest instruction group have successfullyexecuted.

The level 1 (L1) data cache 240 is a 96 KB (kilo-byte) 6-way associativecache with 256 byte cache-lines and 4 cycle use latency, coupled to aprivate 1 MB (mega-byte) 8-way associative 2nd-level (L2) data cache 268with 7 cycles use-latency penalty for L1 240 misses. The L1 240 cache isthe cache closest to a processor and Ln cache is a cache at the nthlevel of caching. Both L1 240 and L2 268 caches are store-through. Sixcores on each central processor (CP) chip share a 48 MB 3rd-levelstore-in cache, and six CP chips are connected to an off-chip 384 MB4th-level cache, packaged together on a glass ceramic multi-chip module(MCM). Up to 4 multi-chip modules (MCMs) can be connected to a coherentsymmetric multi-processor (SMP) system with up to 144 cores (not allcores are available to run customer workload).

Coherency is managed with a variant of the MESI protocol. Cache-linescan be owned read-only (shared) or exclusive; the L1 240 and L2 268 arestore-through and thus do not contain dirty lines. The L3 272 and L4caches (not shown) are store-in and track dirty states. Each cache isinclusive of all its connected lower level caches.

Coherency requests are called “cross interrogates” (XI) and are senthierarchically from higher level to lower-level caches, and between theL4s. When one core misses the L1 240 and L2 268 and requests the cacheline from its local L3 272, the L3 272 checks whether it owns the line,and if necessary sends an XI to the currently owning L2 268/L1 240 underthat L3 272 to ensure coherency, before it returns the cache line to therequestor. If the request also misses the L3 272, the L3 272 sends arequest to the L4 (not shown), which enforces coherency by sending XIsto all necessary L3s under that L4, and to the neighboring L4s. Then theL4 responds to the requesting L3 which forwards the response to the L2268/L1 240.

Note that due to the inclusivity rule of the cache hierarchy, sometimescache lines are XI′ed from lower-level caches due to evictions onhigher-level caches caused by associativity overflows from requests toother cache lines. These XIs can be called “LRU XIs”, where LRU standsfor least recently used.

Making reference to yet another type of XI requests, Demote-XIstransition cache-ownership from exclusive into read-only state, andExclusive-XIs transition cache ownership from exclusive into invalidstate. Demote-XIs and Exclusive-XIs need a response back to the XIsender. The target cache can “accept” the XI, or send a “reject”response if it first needs to evict dirty data before accepting the XI.The L1 240/L2 268 caches are store through, but may reject demote-XIsand exclusive XIs if they have stores in their store queues that need tobe sent to L3 before downgrading the exclusive state. A rejected XI willbe repeated by the sender. Read-only-XIs are sent to caches that own theline read-only; no response is needed for such XIs since they cannot berejected. The details of the SMP protocol are similar to those describedfor the IBM z10 by P. Mak, C. Walters, and G. Strait, in “IBM System z10processor cache subsystem microarchitecture”, IBM Journal of Researchand Development, Vol 53:1, 2009, which is incorporated by referenceherein in its entirety.

Transactional Instruction Execution

FIG. 3 depicts example components of an example transactional executionenvironment, including a CPU and caches/components with which itinteracts (such as those depicted in FIGS. 1 and 2). The instructiondecode unit 208 (IDU) keeps track of the current transaction nestingdepth 212 (TND). When the IDU 208 receives a TBEGIN instruction, thenesting depth 212 is incremented, and conversely decremented on TENDinstructions. The nesting depth 212 is written into the GCT 232 forevery dispatched instruction. When a TBEGIN or TEND is decoded on aspeculative path that later gets flushed, the IDU's 208 nesting depth212 is refreshed from the youngest GCT 232 entry that is not flushed.The transactional state is also written into the issue queue 216 forconsumption by the execution units, mostly by the Load/Store Unit (LSU)280, which also has an effective address calculator 236 included in theLSU 280. The TBEGIN instruction may specify a transaction diagnosticblock (TDB) for recording status information, should the transactionabort before reaching a TEND instruction.

Similar to the nesting depth, the IDU 208/GCT 232 collaboratively trackthe access register/floating-point register (AR/FPR) modification masksthrough the transaction nest; the IDU 208 can place an abort requestinto the GCT 232 when an AR/FPR-modifying instruction is decoded and themodification mask blocks that. When the instruction becomesnext-to-complete, completion is blocked and the transaction aborts.Other restricted instructions are handled similarly, including TBEGIN ifdecoded while in a constrained transaction, or exceeding the maximumnesting depth.

An outermost TBEGIN is cracked into multiple micro-ops depending on theGR-Save-Mask; each micro-op 232 b (including, for example uop 0, uop 1,and uop2) will be executed by one of the two fixed point units (FXUs)220 to save a pair of GRs 228 into a special transaction-backup registerfile 224, that is used to later restore the GR 228 content in case of atransaction abort. Also the TBEGIN spawns micro-ops 232 b to perform anaccessibility test for the TDB if one is specified; the address is savedin a special purpose register for later usage in the abort case. At thedecoding of an outermost TBEGIN, the instruction address and theinstruction text of the TBEGIN are also saved in special purposeregisters for a potential abort processing later on.

TEND and NTSTG are single micro-op 232 b instructions; NTSTG(non-transactional store) is handled like a normal store except that itis marked as non-transactional in the issue queue 216 so that the LSU280 can treat it appropriately. TEND is a no-op at execution time, theending of the transaction is performed when TEND completes.

As mentioned, instructions that are within a transaction are marked assuch in the issue queue 216, but otherwise execute mostly unchanged; theLSU 280 performs isolation tracking as described in the next section.

Since decoding is in-order, and since the IDU 208 keeps track of thecurrent transactional state and writes it into the issue queue 216 alongwith every instruction from the transaction, execution of TBEGIN, TEND,and instructions before, within, and after the transaction can beperformed out-of order. It is even possible (though unlikely) that TENDis executed first, then the entire transaction, and lastly the TBEGINexecutes. Program order is restored through the GCT 232 at completiontime. The length of transactions is not limited by the size of the GCT232, since general purpose registers (GRs) 228 can be restored from thebackup register file 224.

During execution, the program event recording (PER) events are filteredbased on the Event Suppression Control, and a PER TEND event is detectedif enabled. Similarly, while in transactional mode, a pseudo-randomgenerator may be causing the random aborts as enabled by the TransactionDiagnostics Control.

Tracking for Transactional Isolation

The Load/Store Unit 280 tracks cache lines that were accessed duringtransactional execution, and triggers an abort if an XI from another CPU(or an LRU-XI) conflicts with the footprint. If the conflicting XI is anexclusive or demote XI, the LSU 280 rejects the XI back to the L3 272 inthe hope of finishing the transaction before the L3 272 repeats the XI.This “stiff-arming” is very efficient in highly contended transactions.In order to prevent hangs when two CPUs stiff-arm each other, aXI-reject counter is implemented, which triggers a transaction abortwhen a threshold is met.

The L1 cache directory 240 is traditionally implemented with staticrandom access memories (SRAMs). For the transactional memoryimplementation, the valid bits 244 (64 rows×6 ways) of the directoryhave been moved into normal logic latches, and are supplemented with twomore bits per cache line: the TX-read 248 and TX-dirty 252 bits.

The TX-read 248 bits are reset when a new outermost TBEGIN is decoded(which is interlocked against a prior still pending transaction). TheTX-read 248 bit is set at execution time by every load instruction thatis marked “transactional” in the issue queue. Note that this can lead toover-marking if speculative loads are executed, for example on amispredicted branch path. The alternative of setting the TX-read 248 bitat load completion time was too expensive for silicon area, sincemultiple loads can complete at the same time, requiring many read-portson the load-queue.

Stores execute the same way as in non-transactional mode, but atransaction mark is placed in the store queue (STQ) 260 entry of thestore instruction. At write-back time, when the data from the STQ 260 iswritten into the L1 240, the TX-dirty bit 252 in the L1-directory 256 isset for the written cache line. Store write-back into the L1 240 occursonly after the store instruction has completed, and at most one store iswritten back per cycle. Before completion and write-back, loads canaccess the data from the STQ 260 by means of store-forwarding; afterwrite-back, the CPU 114 (FIG. 2) can access the speculatively updateddata in the L1 240. If the transaction ends successfully, the TX-dirtybits 252 of all cache-lines are cleared, and also the TX-marks of notyet written stores are cleared in the STQ 260, effectively turning thepending stores into normal stores.

On a transaction abort, all pending transactional stores are invalidatedfrom the STQ 260, even those already completed. All cache lines thatwere modified by the transaction in the L1 240, that is, have theTX-dirty bit 252 on, have their valid bits turned off, effectivelyremoving them from the L1 240 cache instantaneously.

The architecture requires that before completing a new instruction, theisolation of the transaction read- and write-set is maintained. Thisisolation is ensured by stalling instruction completion at appropriatetimes when XIs are pending; speculative out-of order execution isallowed, optimistically assuming that the pending XIs are to differentaddresses and not actually cause a transaction conflict. This designfits very naturally with the XI-vs-completion interlocks that areimplemented on prior systems to ensure the strong memory ordering thatthe architecture requires.

When the L1 240 receives an XI, L1 240 accesses the directory to checkvalidity of the XI′ed address in the L1 240, and if the TX-read bit 248is active on the XI′ed line and the XI is not rejected, the LSU 280triggers an abort. When a cache line with active TX-read bit 248 isLRU′ed from the L1 240, a special LRU-extension vector remembers foreach of the 64 rows of the L1 240 that a TX-read line existed on thatrow. Since no precise address tracking exists for the LRU extensions,any non-rejected XI that hits a valid extension row the LSU 280 triggersan abort. Providing the LRU-extension effectively increases the readfootprint capability from the L1-size to the L2-size and associativity,provided no conflicts with other CPUs 114 (FIGS. 1 and 2) against thenon-precise LRU-extension tracking causes aborts.

The store footprint is limited by the store cache size (the store cacheis discussed in more detail below) and thus implicitly by the L2 268size and associativity. No LRU-extension action needs to be performedwhen a TX-dirty 252 cache line is LRU′ed from the L1 240.

Store Cache

In prior systems, since the L1 240 and L2 268 are store-through caches,every store instruction causes an L3 272 store access; with now 6 coresper L3 272 and further improved performance of each core, the store ratefor the L3 272 (and to a lesser extent for the L2 268) becomesproblematic for certain workloads. In order to avoid store queuingdelays, a gathering store cache 264 had to be added, that combinesstores to neighboring addresses before sending them to the L3 272.

For transactional memory performance, it is acceptable to invalidateevery TX-dirty 252 cache line from the L1 240 on transaction aborts,because the L2 268 cache is very close (7 cycles L1 240 miss penalty) tobring back the clean lines. However, it would be unacceptable forperformance (and silicon area for tracking) to have transactional storeswrite the L2 268 before the transaction ends and then invalidate alldirty L2 268 cache lines on abort (or even worse on the shared L3 272).

The two problems of store bandwidth and transactional memory storehandling can both be addressed with the gathering store cache 264. Thecache 264 is a circular queue of 64 entries, each entry holding 128bytes of data with byte-precise valid bits. In non-transactionaloperation, when a store is received from the LSU 280, the store cache264 checks whether an entry exists for the same address, and if sogathers the new store into the existing entry. If no entry exists, a newentry is written into the queue, and if the number of free entries fallsunder a threshold, the oldest entries are written back to the L2 268 andL3 272 caches.

When a new outermost transaction begins, all existing entries in thestore cache are marked closed so that no new stores can be gathered intothem, and eviction of those entries to L2 268 and L3 272 is started.From that point on, the transactional stores coming out of the LSU 280STQ 260 allocate new entries, or gather into existing transactionalentries. The write-back of those stores into L2 268 and L3 272 isblocked, until the transaction ends successfully; at that pointsubsequent (post-transaction) stores can continue to gather intoexisting entries, until the next transaction closes those entries again.

The store cache 264 is queried on every exclusive or demote XI, andcauses an XI reject if the XI compares to any active entry. If the coreis not completing further instructions while continuously rejecting XIs,the transaction is aborted at a certain threshold to avoid hangs.

The LSU 280 requests a transaction abort when the store cache 264overflows. The LSU 280 detects this condition when it tries to send anew store that cannot merge into an existing entry, and the entire storecache 264 is filled with stores from the current transaction. The storecache 264 is managed as a subset of the L2 268: while transactionallydirty lines can be evicted from the L1 240, they have to stay residentin the L2 268 throughout the transaction. The maximum store footprint isthus limited to the store cache size of 64×128 bytes, and it is alsolimited by the associativity of the L2 268. Since the L2 268 is 8-wayassociative and has 512 rows, it is typically large enough to not causetransaction aborts.

If a transaction aborts, the store cache 264 is notified and all entriesholding transactional data are invalidated. The store cache 264 also hasa mark per doubleword (8 bytes) whether the entry was written by a NTSTGinstruction—those doublewords stay valid across transaction aborts.

Millicode-Implemented Functions

Traditionally, IBM mainframe server processors contain a layer offirmware called millicode which performs complex functions like certainCISC instruction executions, interruption handling, systemsynchronization, and RAS. Millicode includes machine dependentinstructions as well as instructions of the instruction set architecture(ISA) that are fetched and executed from memory similarly toinstructions of application programs and the operating system (OS).Firmware resides in a restricted area of main memory that customerprograms cannot access. When hardware detects a situation that needs toinvoke millicode, the instruction fetching unit 204 switches into“millicode mode” and starts fetching at the appropriate location in themillicode memory area. Millicode may be fetched and executed in the sameway as instructions of the instruction set architecture (ISA), and mayinclude ISA instructions.

For transactional memory, millicode is involved in various complexsituations. Every transaction abort invokes a dedicated millicodesub-routine to perform the necessary abort steps. The transaction-abortmillicode starts by reading special-purpose registers (SPRs) holding thehardware internal abort reason, potential exception reasons, and theaborted instruction address, which millicode then uses to store a TDB ifone is specified. The TBEGIN instruction text is loaded from an SPR toobtain the GR-save-mask, which is needed for millicode to know which GRs238 to restore.

The CPU 114 (FIG. 2) supports a special millicode-only instruction toread out the backup-GRs 224 and copy them into the main GRs 228. TheTBEGIN instruction address is also loaded from an SPR to set the newinstruction address in the PSW to continue execution after the TBEGINonce the millicode abort sub-routine finishes. That PSW may later besaved as program-old PSW in case the abort is caused by a non-filteredprogram interruption.

The TABORT instruction may be millicode implemented; when the IDU 208decodes TABORT, it instructs the instruction fetch unit to branch intoTABORT's millicode, from which millicode branches into the common abortsub-routine.

The Extract Transaction Nesting Depth (ETND) instruction may also bemillicoded, since it is not performance critical; millicode loads thecurrent nesting depth out of a special hardware register and places itinto a GR 228. The PPA instruction is millicoded; it performs theoptimal delay based on the current abort count provided by software asan operand to PPA, and also based on other hardware internal state.

For constrained transactions, millicode may keep track of the number ofaborts. The counter is reset to 0 on successful TEND completion, or ifan interruption into the OS occurs (since it is not known if or when theOS will return to the program). Depending on the current abort count,millicode can invoke certain mechanisms to improve the chance of successfor the subsequent transaction retry. The mechanisms involve, forexample, successively increasing random delays between retries, andreducing the amount of speculative execution to avoid encounteringaborts caused by speculative accesses to data that the transaction isnot actually using. As a last resort, millicode can broadcast to otherCPUs 114 (FIG. 2) to stop all conflicting work, retry the localtransaction, before releasing the other CPUs 114 to continue normalprocessing. Multiple CPUs 114 must be coordinated to not causedeadlocks, so some serialization between millicode instances ondifferent CPUs 114 is required.

Turning now to FIG. 4, flow diagram 700 illustrating salvaging severallock elision transactions upon detection of a false sharing conflict inaccordance with embodiments of the present disclosure is depicted.Before discussing the particulars of flow diagram 700, a generaldiscussion of embodiments of the present disclosure will be had.

When transactional accesses are monitored using cache lines, transactionconflicts may result when multiple executing processors in atransactional memory system access any part of the same cache line in aconflicting manner. A false sharing conflict may occur when a firsttransaction accesses memory address A, a second transaction concurrentlyaccesses memory address B, and addresses A and B reside in the samecache line. Although the transactions are accessing different memorylocations, the locations A and B are in close enough proximity to beincluded in a single cache line.

As previously described, transactional semantics in transactional memorysystems may be enforced by tracking the memory locations read andwritten by each transaction. If multiple transactionally executinglogical processors access the same memory in a conflicting way, one ormore of the competing (i.e., conflicting) transactions may be aborted.For example, two accesses of the same memory location may be conflictingif at least one of the accesses is a write.

Transactional memory systems may leverage a cache coherence protocol toenforce transactional semantics, using cache lines to detect transactionconflicts. For example, each cache line may be associated withtransactional access bits in addition to the valid bit, coherence statebits, and other descriptive bits that may be associated with the cacheline for maintaining cache coherence and for other various uses. Atransactional read bit (R) may be added to indicate whether a cache linehas been read during execution of a transaction. A transactional writebit (W) may be added to indicate whether a cache line has been writtenduring execution of a transaction.

As further previously described, transactional memory systems implementtransactional semantics through a variety of techniques. Generally, agiven transactional memory system will include a mechanism formaintaining speculative state for a transaction that is being executed(e.g., speculative state may be maintained in-place, while rollbackinformation is preserved in an undo-log; or speculative state may bemaintained in a write buffer, while rollback information is preservedin-place, etc.). If one or more executing transactions exhausts aresource dedicated to the maintenance of speculative state, one or moreof the transactions may be aborted. For example, a transactional memorysystem that includes a hard limit on the number of nested transactionsmay abort one, some, or all nested transactions if the number of nestedtransactions exceeds the hard limit. For another example, atransactional memory system that includes a hard limit on the amount ofstored speculative state may abort one or more transactions if theamount of speculative state exceeds the hard limit (in this example, thehard limit on the amount of speculative state may be based on, e.g., thesize of the write buffer that maintains speculative state, etc.).

As further previously described, transactional memory systems mayimplement hardware lock elision (HLE) techniques. HLE techniques can beused by programmers who prefer the backward compatibility of theconventional mutual exclusion programming model and would like to runHLE-enabled software on legacy hardware but would also like to takeadvantage of the new lock elision capabilities on hardware with HLEsupport.

As stated above, transactional memory systems may implement hardwarelock elision (HLE) techniques. If two or more executing HLE transactionsenter into a false sharing conflict, one or more of the HLE transactionsmay be aborted. For example, if two HLE transactions eliding the samelock enter into a false sharing conflict, one or more of the HLEtransactions may be aborted. However, if two HLE transactions elidingdifferent locks enter into a false sharing conflict, both HLEtransactions can be salvaged according to embodiments of the presentdisclosure. In particular, according to embodiments of the presentdisclosure, upon detection of a false sharing conflict during theexecution of two HLE transactions eliding different locks, instead ofaborting one or more of the executing transactions, the transactionalmemory system salvages both transactions by acquiring both locks,committing both executing transactions, and proceedingnon-transactionally. By salvaging both transactions, the transactionalmemory system thus preserves and utilizes speculative state thatotherwise would have been discarded upon abort of one or more of theexecuting transactions.

In particular, in one embodiment, when two HLE transactions elidingdifferent locks enter into a false sharing conflict and therefore atleast one is about to fail, hardware acquires the locks and commits bothtransactions instead of failing one or both transactions. On every HLElock acquire (e.g., upon a lock acquisition during or immediately afteran XACQUIRE instruction, etc.), hardware remembers the location of thelock and the value used to acquire the lock in, e.g., one or morededicated lock location and lock value registers (e.g., salvagingregister 2002, etc.), etc. In the event that hardware detects a falsesharing conflict between two (or more) HLE transactions for differentlocks, hardware stores the acquire values to the locks that are activefor each of the involved HLE hardware transactions. Hardware commitseach of the hardware transactions. Hardware continues execution normallyfor each of the involved critical sections non-transactionally. That is,execution continues while holding the appropriate locks the same as ifthat point was reached without using HLE transactions.

Embodiments of the present disclosure include hardware to detect falsesharing conflicts between lock elision transactions that are elidingdifferent locks, hardware to suppress the false sharing conflict and theaccesses that caused it, hardware to acquire the lock of each respectivelock elision transaction, hardware to commit each respectivetransaction, and hardware to continue each critical sectionnon-transactionally.

In flow diagram 700, block 710, a transactional memory system begins twoor more HLE transactions that elide different locks. In particular, thetransactional memory system can begin executing code regions that eachincludes a lock acquisition instruction having an XACQUIRE prefix, etc.At block 712, the transactional memory system records the lock locationsand the values to be used to acquire the locks. At block 714, thetransactional memory system executes instructions within thetransactional code regions. For example, one logical processor canexecute an instruction in the transactional code region of a first HLEtransaction, while another logical processor can execute an instructionin the transactional code region of a second HLE transaction. At block716, the transactional memory system can determine whether the HLEtransactions have entered into a false sharing conflict (in oneembodiment, this involves evaluating a next instruction of at least oneof the HLE transactions to determine if its execution will cause thefalse sharing conflict) by, for example, detecting a pending cache lineconflict. For example, the HLE transactions have entered into a falsesharing conflict if the HLE transactions attempt to access any part ofthe same cache line in a conflicting manner while eliding differentlocks. If the transactional memory system does not determine the HLEtransactions have entered into a false sharing conflict, then thetransactional memory system executes more instructions within thetransactional code regions, at block 714. However, if the transactionalmemory system does determine that the HLE transactions have entered intoa false sharing conflict, then the transactional memory systemidentifies the next instructions in the transactions.

At block 718, the transactional memory system writes the values to beused to acquire the locks to the lock locations. At block 720, thetransactional memory system commits the HLE transactions by, forexample, making the speculative state visible to other threads ofexecution, or writing the write buffers that maintain speculative stateto memory, etc. At block 722, the transactional memory system ends theHLE transactions and continues execution non-transactionally by, forexample, executing the next instructions identified by the transactionalmemory system previously. Because the next instructions are executedoutside of a transactional context, execution of the next instructionsdoes not cause the loss of speculative state.

Turning now to FIG. 5, flow diagram 800 illustrating salvaging severallock elision transactions upon detection of a false sharing conflict inaccordance with embodiments of the present disclosure is depicted. Acomputer system, such as computer 1912 of FIG. 7, for salvaging hardwarelock elision (HLE) transactions can include a memory and a processor incommunications with the memory, and can be configured to perform amethod including recording, by the computer system (e.g., by elided lockinformation recorder 2004, etc.), information about locks elided tobegin HLE transactional execution of a first transactional code regionof a first transaction having an elided first lock and recordinginformation about locks elided to begin HLE transactional execution of asecond transactional code region of a second transaction having anelided second lock, the first transaction and the second transactionexecuting concurrently 810; detecting a pending cache line conflict(e.g., by cache-line conflict detector 2022, etc.) of a cache linemonitored associated with the first transaction 812; based on thedetecting, stopping (e.g., by transactional execution stopper 2008,etc.) execution of the first code region of the first transaction andthe second code region of the second transaction 814; determining thatthe first lock and the second lock are different locks (e.g., byfalse-sharing conflict determiner 2024, etc.) 816; based on thedetermining, using the recorded information about locks elided toacquire (e.g., by lock acquirer 2010, etc.) the first lock of the firsttransaction and the second lock of the second transaction 818; based onthe stopping the execution, committing speculative state (e.g., byspeculative state committer 2012, etc.) of the first transaction and thesecond transaction 820; and based on the first lock and the second lockbeing acquired, continuing (e.g., by non-transactional execution starter2014, etc.) execution of the first code region and the second coderegion non-transactionally 822.

Turning now to FIG. 6, portions of flow diagram 800 of FIG. 5illustrating salvaging several lock elision transactions upon detectionof a false sharing conflict in accordance with embodiments of thepresent disclosure are depicted. The information about the locks elidedcan include the first lock location and the second lock location, andthe values to be used to acquire the first lock and the second lock 824.The acquiring the first lock and the second lock using the informationcan include writing at least one of the values to be used to acquire thelocks to at least one of the lock locations 826. The detecting thepending cache line conflict can include detecting a cross-interrogate,from another processor, of the cache line 828. The stopping execution ofthe first transactional code region of the first transaction and thesecond transactional code region of the second transaction comprisesstopping execution of the first transactional code region afterexecuting a first instruction of the first transactional code region andstopping execution of the second transactional code region afterexecuting a second instruction of the second transactional code region,the first instruction having first next instructions to be executed, thesecond instruction having second next instructions to be executed,wherein the continuing the execution of the respective firsttransactional code region and the second transactional code regionnon-transactionally includes executing said first next instructions inthe first transactional code region and executing said second nextinstructions in the second transactional code region 830. The detectingthe pending cache line conflict can include determining that anotherprocessor is requesting a store to a monitored memory location (e.g., bycache-line conflict detector 2022, etc.) 832. The information aboutlocks elided can be recorded in at least one dedicated register (e.g.,in salvaging register 2002, etc.), wherein the recorded informationabout the locks elided includes locations of the locks and values usedto acquire the locks 834. At least a portion of the speculative state ofthe first transaction can be a speculative store stored in a gatheringstore cache (e.g., cache 264, etc.) 836.

Referring now to FIG. 7, a functional block diagram of computer system1900 in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure isshown. Computer system 1900 is only one example of a suitable computersystem and is not intended to suggest any limitation as to the scope ofuse or functionality of embodiments of the disclosure described herein.Regardless, computer system 1900 is capable of being implemented and/orperforming any of the functionality set forth hereinabove.

In computer system 1900 there is computer 1912, which is operationalwith numerous other general purpose or special purpose computing systemenvironments or configurations. Examples of well-known computingsystems, environments, and/or configurations that may be suitable foruse with computer 1912 include, but are not limited to, personalcomputer systems, server computer systems, thin clients, thick clients,handheld or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-basedsystems, set top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, network PCs,minicomputer systems, mainframe computer systems, and distributed cloudcomputing environments that include any of the above systems or devices,and the like.

Computer 1912 may be described in the general context of computer systemexecutable instructions, such as program modules, being executed by acomputer system. Generally, program modules may include routines,programs, objects, components, logic, data structures, and so on thatperform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types.Computer 1912 may be practiced in distributed cloud computingenvironments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices thatare linked through a communications network. In a distributed cloudcomputing environment, program modules may be located in both local andremote computer system storage media including memory storage devices.

As further shown in FIG. 7, computer 1912 in computer system 1900 isshown in the form of a general-purpose computing device. The componentsof computer 1912 may include, but are not limited to, one or moreprocessors or processing units 1916, memory 1928, and bus 1918 thatcouples various system components including memory 1928 to processingunit 1916. Processing units 1916 can, in various embodiments, includesome or all of CPU 114 a, 114 b of FIG. 1, transactional CPU environment112 of FIG. 2, and the processor of FIG. 3. Further, processing units1916 can, in various embodiments, include some or all of salvagingregister 2002, elided lock information recorder 2004, point-of-failuredetector 2006, transactional execution stopper 2008, lock acquirer 2010,speculative state committer 2012, non-transactional execution starter2014, next instruction evaluator 2016, nested transaction limitdeterminer 2018, speculative state limit determiner 2020, cache-lineconflict detector 2022, false-sharing conflict determiner 2024,about-to-fail handler recorder 2026, salvage indication informationobtainer 2028, salvage indication information saver 2030, salvageindication information user 2032, salvage indication save determiner2034, transaction suspender 2036, transaction state information recorder2038, transaction state information determiner 2040, and about-to-failcontrol transferor 2042, as discussed above and as depicted in FIG. 8,discussed below.

Bus 1918 represents one or more of any of several types of busstructures, including a memory bus or memory controller, a peripheralbus, an accelerated graphics port, and a processor or local bus usingany of a variety of bus architectures. By way of example, and notlimitation, such architectures include Industry Standard Architecture(ISA) bus, Micro Channel Architecture (MCA) bus, Enhanced ISA (EISA)bus, Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) local bus, andPeripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus.

Computer 1912 typically includes a variety of computer system readablemedia. Such media may be any available media that is accessible bycomputer 1912, and includes both volatile and non-volatile media, andremovable and non-removable media. For example, media 1950, shown atcomputer system 1900, can be built in to computer 1912 or portable withrespect to computer 1912, and can include one or more embodiments of thepresent disclosure.

Memory 1928 can include computer system readable media in the form ofvolatile memory, such as random access memory (RAM) 1930 and/or cache1932. In one embodiment, cache 1932, and/or additional caches, areincluded in processing unit 1916. Computer 1912 may further includeother removable/non-removable, volatile/non-volatile computer systemstorage media. By way of example only, storage system 1934 can beprovided for reading from and writing to a non-removable, non-volatilemagnetic media (not shown and typically called a “hard drive”). Althoughnot shown, a magnetic disk drive for reading from and writing to aremovable, non-volatile magnetic disk (e.g., a “floppy disk”), and anoptical disk drive for reading from or writing to a removable,non-volatile optical disk such as a CD-ROM, DVD-ROM or other opticalmedia can be provided. In such instances, each can be connected to bus1918 by one or more data media interfaces. As will be further depictedand described below, memory 1928 may include at least one programproduct having a set (e.g., at least one) of program modules that areconfigured to carry out some or all of the functions of embodiments ofthe disclosure.

Program 1940, having one or more program modules 1942, may be stored inmemory 1928 by way of example, and not limitation, as well as anoperating system, one or more application programs, other programmodules, and program data. Each of the operating system, one or moreapplication programs, other program modules, and program data or somecombination thereof, may include an implementation of a networkingenvironment. In some embodiments, program modules 1942 generally carryout the functions and/or methodologies of embodiments of the disclosureas described herein, while in other embodiments, processing unit 1916generally carries out the functions and/or methodologies of embodimentsof the disclosure as described herein, while in yet other embodimentsother portions of computer 1912 generally carry out the functions and/ormethodologies of embodiments of the disclosure as described herein.

Computer 1912 may also communicate with one or more external devices1914 such as a keyboard, a pointing device, etc., as well as display1924; one or more devices that enable a user to interact with computer1912; and/or any devices (e.g., network card, modem, etc.) that enablecomputer 1912 to communicate with one or more other computing devices.Such communication can occur via Input/Output (I/O) interfaces 1922.Still yet, computer 1912 can communicate with one or more networks suchas a local area network (LAN), a general wide area network (WAN), and/ora public network (e.g., the Internet) via network adapter 1920. Asdepicted, network adapter 1920 communicates with the other components ofcomputer 1912 via bus 1918. It should be understood that although notshown, other hardware and/or software components could be used inconjunction with computer 1912. Examples, include, but are not limitedto: microcode, device drivers, redundant processing units, external diskdrive arrays, RAID systems, tape drives, and data archival storagesystems, etc.

Referring now to FIG. 8, a functional block diagram of a portion ofcomputer system 1900 in accordance with an embodiment of the presentdisclosure is shown. In particular, FIG. 8 depicts a detail view ofprocessing unit 1916, shown as including salvaging register 2002, elidedlock information recorder 2004, point-of-failure detector 2006,transactional execution stopper 2008, lock acquirer 2010, speculativestate committer 2012, non-transactional execution starter 2014, nextinstruction evaluator 2016, nested transaction limit determiner 2018,speculative state limit determiner 2020, cache-line conflict detector2022, false-sharing conflict determiner 2024, about-to-fail handlerrecorder 2026, salvage indication information obtainer 2028, salvageindication information saver 2030, salvage indication information user2032, salvage indication save determiner 2034, transaction suspender2036, transaction state information recorder 2038, transaction stateinformation determiner 2040, and about-to-fail control transferor 2042,utilized as discussed above.

Various embodiments of the present disclosure may be implemented in adata processing system suitable for storing and/or executing programcode that includes at least one processor coupled directly or indirectlyto memory elements through a system bus. The memory elements include,for instance, local memory employed during actual execution of theprogram code, bulk storage, and cache memory which provide temporarystorage of at least some program code in order to reduce the number oftimes code must be retrieved from bulk storage during execution.

Input/Output or I/O devices (including, but not limited to, keyboards,displays, pointing devices, DASD, tape, CDs, DVDs, thumb drives andother memory media, etc.) can be coupled to the system either directlyor through intervening I/O controllers. Network adapters may also becoupled to the system to enable the data processing system to becomecoupled to other data processing systems or remote printers or storagedevices through intervening private or public networks. Modems, cablemodems, and Ethernet cards are just a few of the available types ofnetwork adapters.

One or more of the capabilities of the present disclosure can beimplemented in software, firmware, hardware, or some combinationthereof. Further, one or more of the capabilities can be emulated.

One or more aspects of the present disclosure can be included in anarticle of manufacture (e.g., one or more computer program products)having, for instance, computer readable storage media, such as media1950 depicted in FIG. 7. The media has embodied therein, for instance,computer readable program code (instructions) to provide and facilitatethe capabilities of the present disclosure. The article of manufacturecan be included as a part of a computer system or as a separate product.

An embodiment may be a computer program product for enabling processorcircuits to perform elements of the disclosure, the computer programproduct comprising a computer readable storage medium readable by aprocessing circuit and storing instructions for execution by theprocessing circuit for performing a method.

An embodiment of the present invention may be a system, a method, and/ora computer program product. The computer program product may include acomputer readable storage medium (or media) having computer readableprogram instructions thereon for causing a processor to carry outaspects of the present invention.

The computer readable storage medium can be a tangible device that canretain and store instructions for use by an instruction executiondevice. The computer readable storage medium may be, for example, but isnot limited to, an electronic storage device, a magnetic storage device,an optical storage device, an electromagnetic storage device, asemiconductor storage device, or any suitable combination of theforegoing. A non-exhaustive list of more specific examples of thecomputer readable storage medium includes the following: a portablecomputer diskette, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), aread-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROMor Flash memory), a static random access memory (SRAM), a portablecompact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), a digital versatile disk (DVD),a memory stick, a floppy disk, a mechanically encoded device such aspunch-cards or raised structures in a groove having instructionsrecorded thereon, and any suitable combination of the foregoing. Acomputer readable storage medium, as used herein, is not to be construedas being transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freelypropagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagatingthrough a waveguide or other transmission media (e.g., light pulsespassing through a fiber-optic cable), or electrical signals transmittedthrough a wire.

Computer readable program instructions described herein can bedownloaded to respective computing/processing devices from a computerreadable storage medium or to an external computer or external storagedevice via a network, for example, the Internet, a local area network, awide area network and/or a wireless network. The network may comprisecopper transmission cables, optical transmission fibers, wirelesstransmission, routers, firewalls, switches, gateway computers and/oredge servers. A network adapter card or network interface in eachcomputing/processing device receives computer readable programinstructions from the network and forwards the computer readable programinstructions for storage in a computer readable storage medium withinthe respective computing/processing device.

Computer readable program instructions for carrying out operations ofthe present invention may be assembler instructions,instruction-set-architecture (ISA) instructions, machine instructions,machine dependent instructions, microcode, firmware instructions,state-setting data, or either source code or object code written in anycombination of one or more programming languages, including an objectoriented programming language such as Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like,and conventional procedural programming languages, such as the “C”programming language or similar programming languages. The computerreadable program instructions may execute entirely on the user'scomputer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone softwarepackage, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computeror entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario,the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through anytype of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide areanetwork (WAN), or the connection may be made to an external computer(for example, through the Internet using an Internet Service Provider).In some embodiments, electronic circuitry including, for example,programmable logic circuitry, field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA), orprogrammable logic arrays (PLA) may execute the computer readableprogram instructions by utilizing state information of the computerreadable program instructions to personalize the electronic circuitry,in order to perform aspects of the present invention.

Aspects of the present invention are described herein with reference toflowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams of methods, apparatus(systems), and computer program products according to embodiments of theinvention. It will be understood that each block of the flowchartillustrations and/or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in theflowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, can be implemented bycomputer readable program instructions.

These computer readable program instructions may be provided to aprocessor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, orother programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, suchthat the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computeror other programmable data processing apparatus, create means forimplementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or blockdiagram block or blocks. These computer readable program instructionsmay also be stored in a computer readable storage medium that can directa computer, a programmable data processing apparatus, and/or otherdevices to function in a particular manner, such that the computerreadable storage medium having instructions stored therein comprises anarticle of manufacture including instructions which implement aspects ofthe function/act specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram blockor blocks.

The computer readable program instructions may also be loaded onto acomputer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other deviceto cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer,other programmable apparatus or other device to produce a computerimplemented process, such that the instructions which execute on thecomputer, other programmable apparatus, or other device implement thefunctions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block orblocks.

The flowchart and block diagrams in the Figures illustrate thearchitecture, functionality, and operation of possible implementationsof systems, methods, and computer program products according to variousembodiments of the present invention. In this regard, each block in theflowchart or block diagrams may represent a module, segment, or portionof instructions, which comprises one or more executable instructions forimplementing the specified logical function(s). In some alternativeimplementations, the functions noted in the block may occur out of theorder noted in the figures. For example, two blocks shown in successionmay, in fact, be executed substantially concurrently, or the blocks maysometimes be executed in the reverse order, depending upon thefunctionality involved. It will also be noted that each block of theblock diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, and combinations of blocksin the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, can be implementedby special purpose hardware-based systems that perform the specifiedfunctions or acts or carry out combinations of special purpose hardwareand computer instructions.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for salvaging hardware lock elision(HLE) transactions, the method comprising: recording, by a computersystem, information about locks elided to begin HLE transactionalexecution of a first transactional code region of a first transactionhaving an elided first lock; recording information about locks elided tobegin HLE transactional execution of a second transactional code regionof a second transaction having an elided second lock, the firsttransaction and the second transaction executing concurrently; detectinga pending cache line conflict of a cache line monitored associated withthe first transaction; based on the detecting, stopping execution of thefirst transactional code region of the first transaction and the secondtransactional code region of the second transaction; determining thatthe first lock and the second lock are different locks; based on thedetermining, using the recorded information about locks elided toacquire the first lock of the first transaction and the second lock ofthe second transaction; based on the stopping the execution, committingspeculative state of the first transaction and the second transaction;and based on the first lock and the second lock being acquired,continuing execution of the first transactional code region and thesecond transactional code region non-transactionally.
 2. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the recorded information about the locks elidedincludes the location of the first lock and the location of the secondlock, and values to be used to acquire the first lock and the secondlock.
 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the acquiring the first lock andthe second lock using the recorded information includes writing at leastone of the values to be used to acquire the locks to at least one of thelocations of the locks.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the detectingthe pending cache line conflict includes detecting a cross-interrogate,from another processor, of the cache line.
 5. The method of claim 1,wherein the stopping execution of the first transactional code region ofthe first transaction and the second transactional code region of thesecond transaction comprises stopping execution of the firsttransactional code region after executing a first instruction of thefirst transactional code region and stopping execution of the secondtransactional code region after executing a second instruction of thesecond transactional code region, the first instruction having firstnext instructions to be executed, the second instruction having secondnext instructions to be executed, wherein the continuing the executionof the respective first transactional code region and the secondtransactional code region non-transactionally includes executing saidfirst next instructions in the first transactional code region andexecuting said second next instructions in the second transactional coderegion.
 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the detecting the pendingcache line conflict includes determining that another processor isrequesting a store to a monitored memory location.
 7. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the information about locks elided is recorded in atleast one dedicated register, wherein the recorded information about thelocks elided includes locations of the locks and values used to acquirethe locks.
 8. The method of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of thespeculative state of the first transaction is a speculative store storedin a gathering store cache.